"I would like to request that an amended indictment be filed. I gave a copy to my friends. There are amendments, mainly for defendants 1 and 2. As for the other defendants, there are no amendments. I referred my friends for corrections. The most significant amendment is Amendment 12 [the Night Meeting Affair], in which Defendant 1 was removed from the indictment. Defendants 2 and 3 remain in the indictment."
Thus far, no plea bargain has been mentioned at all, and the manner in which the matter was presented was as usual in situations of notice of an amendment to an indictment under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to the reading of the indictment. This is supported by the fact that the amendments to the indictment were made, as the plaintiff explicitly announced, not only with regard to Malka but also with regard to Fischer, with whom there is no dispute that no plea bargain was reached.
From here, the accuser's counsel proceeded to talk about the developments that occurred in the case after the indictment was filed, as a result of the signing of the agreement between her and Malka and the expected completion of the investigation in light of the additional information that Malka provided following the agreement (p. 2). Counsel for the accuser spoke explicitly about an agreement that was signed, and did not add that additional agreements were reached with Malka that were not put in writing.
Only afterwards was the plea bargain mentioned for the first time (later on p. 2):
"With regard to Defendant 1, we have reached a plea bargain whereby he will admit the facts of the amended indictment and the parties will argue for the sentence freely."
In light of the course of the hearing described, the plain meaning of the words of the accuser's counsel regarding the plea bargain with Malka is that this is a signed document dated June 4, 2015, entitled "Plea Agreement/Bargain", in which it was agreed that Malka "will confess to the indictment filed against him in this case, will be convicted of it, and the parties will openly argue for punishment" (attention should be paid to the compatibility of this wording with the words of the accusing counsel as quoted from the hearing of June 10, 2015).